The Guardian and Observer have a number of safeguards in place to protect and foster the bond of trust with our readers and users.

These include an editorial code of conduct that goes beyond the guidelines of the Press Complaints Commission and a published style guide, because the style of a newspaper should complement what it stands for – in the way we write about such issues as gender, race, and disability, and the respect with which we treat those we write about.

The Guardian and the Observer are unique in the British press in having readers' editors – journalists who listen to the complaints and concerns of the audience and act on their behalf, correcting errors and writing columns on the papers' journalism.

The Guardian was the first to set up the post in 1997 followed four years later by the Observer, although the role on the Sunday paper is combined with other duties. The terms of reference for the Guardian post include "to collect, consider, investigate, respond to, and where appropriate come to a conclusion about readers' comments, concerns, and complaints in a prompt and timely manner, from a position of independence within the paper."

The Guardian readers' editor dealt with 14,435 communications in the seven months ending May 2010 and published 664 corrections in the paper during that period, although this represents only a fraction of the correcting and clarifying of our online content.

Stephen Pritchard, readers' editor of the Observer, who dealt with more than 10,000 complaints in 2009, is also president of the world-wide Organisation of News Ombudsmen (ONO). Below, he looks at the future of the role and the challenges of the job in an online world.

A network of news ombudsmen operates independently in newspapers, television and radio all around the world, working with the simple maxim that if the media hold governments and institutions to account, then media should be accountable too.

They maintain their work strengthens rather than damages the credibility of their news outlets, showing the reader or viewer that it cares about accuracy, about fairness, about getting the story right.

As president of the ONO for the past two years, I have had a unique opportunity to see at first-hand the desire to increase this form of media self-regulation in emerging democracies around the globe ... a desire that belies the accepted wisdom that news ombudsmanship is in decline.

It is true that the recession saw a dozen ombudsmen lose their jobs in the United States in 2008/9 but now as confidence is returning so are the ombudsmen, with three new appointments made already this year.

But it is in the rest of the world that real interest is being shown. In the past year, ONO members have visited India, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, the Pacific Islands, Taiwan, Lithuania, Cyprus and Turkey at the request of their media organisations who wish to learn more about appointing ombudsmen in their newsrooms. Future "missions" are also planned to Africa and the Middle East.

While all this activity is extremely useful, there is an even wider question exercising the minds of working ombudsmen today: how do they deal with the internet?

My colleague, Yavuz Baydar, the readers' representative at Sabah, Istanbul and a former president of ONO has recently written a major survey for Unesco on ombudsmanship worldwide, in which he discusses the impact of the internet on journalism.

He writes: "The internet has not only helped trigger an explosion in the number of news outlets, independent websites and blogs, it has also opened up suppressed corners of the world to the free flow of information. In addition, it has allowed the public to be more involved in the news process and has changed the practices and content of journalism."

This poses enormous challenges to the conventional wisdom and ethics of journalism, he says, noting that as the internet weakens editorial control of content, the need for self-regulation in the virtual domain has become more apparent and urgent than ever.

"The challenges to major news outlets that operate in the most-spoken languages (English, Spanish, Arabic and French) are obvious: their audience is not bound by geographic borders. As the internet changes the news industry, important questions about traditional values and ethics of journalism, such as accountability, honesty and balance have been raised.

"For instance, can news organisations that are financially challenged still maintain democratic values? What is the value of the mainstream media when the internet seems to be attracting more attention and revenue? And how can media organisations sustain the trust of their readers, listeners and viewers? There are no easy answers to these questions."

Prof Jeffrey Dvorkin, executive director of ONO and a former ombudsman of National Public Radio (NPR) in the US, sees the need for more ombudsmen in the age of the internet.

He elaborates: "Mainstream media are increasingly on the defensive about their continued role at a time when the public seems to be seeking information in other ways and in other places, such as the internet. That has allowed some media critics – usually bloggers – to accuse "legacy" journalism of increasing irrelevance. In a way they may be right: as circulation and ratings decline, media organisations are looking for ways to sustain their diminishing numbers often by "infotainment".

"In a constant search of efficiencies, news organisations everywhere are rationalizing resources, seeking that elusive younger demographic by beefing up their websites, but abandoning more expensive aspects such as investigative reporting. Many are letting go some of their most experienced editors and reporters, including ombudsmen.

"We seem to be living an existential crisis for journalism: Can journalism survive without journalists? The same question can well be asked of news ombudsmen – those independent, in-house critics and mediators between the public and the news organisation. Can news organisations rely on cyber-critics rather than ombudsmen?

"The internet is both the villain and the saviour for media organisations: on the one hand, managers are certain that their audiences are being lured away by the siren songs of the blogosphere; on the other hand, in-house bloggers and websites are being created everywhere."

Dvorkin believes that the value of an ombudsman seems more urgent than ever before. "Media critics in cyberspace have real value in channelling the concerns of the public; but holding media to account and to greater transparency seems more ably done by ombudsmen."

How can these two essential ingredients be joined for the benefit of readers?

"One way would be for ombudsmen to be more open and aware of the criticisms in the blogosphere. Ombudsmen are uniquely situated and qualified to act as the bridge that can connect the public's hunger for accountability with the news organisations' acknowledgement that they must do a better job."

Dvorkin writes that "ombudsmen must be in the forefront of this linkage by being advocates for a Bloggers' Ethics Guide".

He suggests that the code of ethics found at www.cyberjournalist.net is applicable to a large extent. Dvorkin emphasizes that "As cyberjournalism becomes more prominent, 'legacy' ombudsmen can have a positive role in nurturing ethical behaviour. In the process, the sharing of knowledge can only serve to benefit the public who need reliable and transparent information, wherever they seek it."

Dvorkin believes that the new age of online media ushers in the need for "cyberombudsmen":

"Being a 'cyberombudsman' will require new skills because it will require the same viral approach as the new medium itself demands. That means taking a more pro-active role, seeking online the discussions and issues that have an impact on the journalism. To borrow a sports analogy, it means playing a lot of 'offence' more than 'defence.' The new role will be one where the skills of key word searches, algorithms and a constant connection with media bloggers will combine to create a new form of ombudsmanship."

In effect, this next generation of "cyberombudsmen" will be the new bridge not only between traditional media and traditional audiences. He or she will also have to bridge the gap between traditional media and their rapidly proliferating corps of digital critics.

This means that in order for journalism to fulfil its own critical role as a lynchpin for democratic values, media organisations and ombudsmen need to reassess their roles and relationships – with each other and with the rapidly evolving audiences who remain hungry for accountability and integrity.

The credibility of the news organisation rests increasingly on the willingness to admit mistakes and to allow the public into the now no longer mysterious process. Citizen journalists increasingly feel they have the right to challenge the media, but too often they attempt this without the knowledge or the ethical capacity to do this effectively.

Dvorkin believes that the old model of the ombudsman as the solitary, experienced and somewhat isolated figure in the newsroom needs to change. "The way to make this work is to engage more and younger journalists with their skills and their new ways of making sense of the world. They must be brought into the media business with the specific and urgent task of transforming ombudsmen into "cyberombudsmen" and creating a new and needed approach to digital democracy."